FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 16, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12110

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 5 0 0 - CV - T- 3 0 - M SS M I C H A E L M U L N I X , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t,

v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y F O R T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , R es po nd ent -A pp el l ee .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 16, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

I n 1998, pe t i t i one r - appe l l a ntM i c ha e l M ul ni x w a s c onvi c t e d of s e c ond d eg ree m u rd er. A ft er co m p l et i n g h i s d i rectap p eal , M u l n i x fi l ed a t i m el y p ro se habe a s pe t i t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 2254. T he di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d the pe t i t i on f or h ab e a s r e lie f

. A lth o u g h M u ln ix h a d e x h au s te d h is s ta te c o u rt r e m e d ie s w ith re spec tt o a suff

i ci encyof the evi dence chal l enge un der s t at e l aw , the di stri ctcourt c o n c lu d e d h e h a d n o t f

a ir ly p r e s e n te d af

e d e r a l s u f

f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e c la im o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. T hi s C ou rti ss ued a cert i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty on the qu es t i on of w hether the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n f i ndi ng M ul ni x’ s c l a i m pr oc e dur a l l y ba rr e d. H a vi ng r e vi e w e d the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on de no vo , A tw ate rv . Cr os by , 451 F . 3d 799, 809 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , w e c onc l ude tha t , unde rthe pa rt i c ul a rf a c t s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of

thi s c a s e , M ul ni x’ s f

e de r a l due pr oc e s s c ha l l e nge t o the s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e w a s e x h au s te d a n d th u s is n o t p r o c e d u r a lly b a rr e d . B e f or e br i ngi ng ape t i t i on f orw r i tof

habe a s c orpus unde r28 U . S . C . § 2254, a pri soner i s r equi re d t o exh austal l avai l abl e s t at e c ou rtre m edi es , ei ther on d i re ct ap p eal o r i n a st at e p o st -co n v i ct i o n m o t i o n . 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (b ), (c). T o ex h au st s ta te r e m e d ie s , th e p e titio n e rm u s t “f a ir ly p r e s e n t” h is f

e d e r a l c la im s to th e s ta te c ourt , pr ovi di ng i tw i th “ a n opportuni ty t o appl y c ontr ol l i ng l e ga l pr i nc i pl e s t o the fa ct s beari ng up on them . ” H en ry v. D ep ’t

o f C o rr. , 19 7 F . 3d 13 61 , 13 66 (11 C i r. thThe SupremeCourt held in InReW ins hip , 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. C t. 1068, 1073 1 (1970), that “the Due Proc ess Clause prote cts the ac cused ag ainst conviction except upon proof 3 1999) ( c i t i ng P i c ard v . C onnor , 4 0 4 U .S . 2 7 0 , 2 7 5 , 9 2 S . C t. 5 0 9 , 5 1 2 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ) . T h e r e a s o n f

o rth is ru le is s im p le : “I f s ta te c o u rts a r e to b e g iv e n th e o p p o rtu n ity to c o rr e c t a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f p r is o n e r s ’ f

e d e r a l r ig h ts , th e y m u s t . . . b e a le rte d to the fa ctthatthe pri soners ar e a ss ert i ng cl ai m s und erthe U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on . ” D u n ca n v. H en ry , 513 U . S . 364, 365- 66, 115 S . C t . 887, 888 (199 5). F lo r id ac o u rts a s s e s s th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e u s e d to c o n v ic t cr i m i nal defe nd ant s und era l egal st andard i dent i ca l t o the on e use d b y f eder al c o u rts in d e c id in g f

e d e r a l d u e p r o c e s s c h a lle n g e s to th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e . In as se ss i ng the suff

i ci encyof the evi dence, F l ori da court s r evi ew w hether, af t er vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the S t at e, a r at i on al tri erof fa ct c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e e x is te n c e o f

th e e le m e n ts o f

th e c r im e b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. S im m o n s v . S ta te , 9 3 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 0 , 1 1 1 1 ( F la . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h is is id e n tic a l to the fe dera l st andard for re vi ew i ng du e proces s c hal l enges bas ed on the suff i ci ency of the e vi de nc e , a s s e tf

orth i n J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 9 9 S . C t. 2781, 2789 ( 1979 ) ( s t a nda r d i s “ w he the r , a f t e rr e vi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ght m os tf a vor abl e t o the pr os e c ut i on, a ny r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound the es se nt i al el em ent s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt ”) . 1beyond a

re a so na bledoub t of

every fac t ne c e ssa

ry to c on stitutethec rimewith which h eis charg ed.” The SupremeCourt later extended W ins hipto t heha be a s c onte xt, ho ldingthat a prisoner challeng ing a

state criminal conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is entitled to habeas corpus relief under the DueProcess Clause when the evidenceadduce d at trial wa s insufficient to permit a rational trier of f act to find proof

of guilt beyond a re asonabledoubt. Jack son , 9 9 S. Ct. at 2791-2792. 4 T he S up re m e C ou rthas m ade c l ear thata pri soner does notexhaustfe dera l c la im s m e r e ly b y r a is in g s im ila rs ta te c la im s . P i ca rd , 404 U . S . a t277- 78; A n derso n v. H

a rless , 45 9 U . S . 4, 6, 10 3 S . C t . 27 6, 27 7 (19 82 ). In thi s c as e, ho w ever , M ul ni x’ s s t at e and fe dera l cl ai m s w er e notm er el y s i m i l ar : they w er e id e n tic a l. T h e p u rp o s e o f f a irp r e s e n tm e n t is to p e rm it s ta te c o u rts to e f f ic ie n tly a ddr e s s pr i s one r s ’ c ha l l e nge s t o the i rs t a t e c ourtc onvi c t i ons , i de a l l y pr ovi di ng a s in g le f o ru m in w h ic h to c o rr e c t a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f p r is o n e r s ’ r ig h ts u n d e rs ta te an d fed eral l aw . In th i s case, th e st at e co u rtan al yzed M u l n i x ’ s d u e p ro cess suff i ci encyof the evi dence cl ai m usi ng a s t andard i dent i ca l t o the on e r equi re d u n d e rf e d e r a l la w . U n d e rth e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , w e c o n c lu d e M u ln ix ’s f e d e r a l c la im h a s b e e n e x h au s te d . C

f . J ac k s on v . E dw ards , 4 0 4 F .3 d 6 1 2 , 6 1 9 ( 2 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de ri s va c a t e d, a nd the c a s e i s r e m a nde d s ol e l y f or c ons i de r a t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) of M ul ni x’ s due pr oc e s s c ha l l e nge t o the s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e u s e d to c o n v ic t h im in s ta te c o u rt. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.